CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s403582AA { width:8.67pt; display:inline-block } .s7EDD3AD2 { width:153.53pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sE933ECD6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41229/04 Gasan Asilderovich MAGOMEDOV against Russia and 22 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   December 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having regard to the comments submitted by Citizens’ Watch, which had been given leave to intervene in the written procedure (Article   36   § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court), Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. Their personal details appear in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     On various dates between 2011 and 2015 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted of various offences under the Russian legislation in force. The particulars of the relevant domestic proceedings are presented in the appended table. COMPLAINTS 4.     The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were not provided an opportunity to examine during trial the prosecution witnesses and/or the witnesses on their behalf. They further submitted accessory complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. THE LAW 5.     The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications listed in the appended table should be joined. 6.     The respondent Government in their observations argued that applicants had had fair hearings in the determination of the criminal charges against them in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.     Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific arguments. 8.     The Court has carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table and concludes in respect of the complaints under Article   6   §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that, in the light of the Court’s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, § 101, ECHR 2015), the presumption that in principle the Russian legal system offers robust procedural guarantees securing the right of an accused to examine witnesses testifying against him, ensuring that the reading out of absent witnesses’ testimony is possible only as an exception (see Zadumov v. Russia , no.   2257/12, § 63, 12   December 2017, recently reiterated in Kiba and Others v. Russia [Committee] (dec.), nos. 38047/08 and 2   others, § 16, 17   April 2018), the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the applications are manifestly ill ‑ founded, and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. 9.     As regards the applicants’ other complaints the Court concludes in the light of all the materials that they are also inadmissible and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1, 3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 January 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Olga Chernishova   Darian Pavli   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by Date of the trial and appeal courts’ judgments   Convicted of Communicated complaints and reasons for inadmissibility 1 41229/04   18/11/2004 Gasan Asilderovich MAGOMEDOV 1968 Prosvet Russian   Pavel Alekseyevich FINOGENOV Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan 25/12/2003   Supreme Court of Russia 09/06/2004   Convicted of an attempt to life of the police officers, illegal possession of weapons   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) -The absent prosecution witness Mr   R.T. 1) could not be located despite valid efforts, 2)   was neither sole, nor decisive witness, 3)   and sufficient counterbalancing factors were present.   Article 3 – alleged ill-treatment in police custody – failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies (compare, Belevitskiy v. Russia , no. 72967/01, §§   58 ‑ 67, 1 March 2007).   2 3907/05   07/12/2004 Vladimir Ivanovich GOROSHKO 1964 Stavropol Russian   Oksana Valeryevna SADCHIKOVA   Stravropol Regional Court 12/03/2004   Supreme Court of Russia 09/06/2004   Convicted of murder of several people and destruction of the property   Article 6 § 3 (d) - dismissed request to call and question experts Mr Sh. and Mr K. – 1) the refusal to call the experts duly reasoned by the national courts, 2)   conviction based on different evidence, 3) the applicant was able to conduct his defence effectively, present his version of events and cast doubt on the credibility of the evidence in question. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   3 13888/05   31/03/2005 Aleksey Nikolayevich SMIRNOV 1978 Kostroma Russian   Yekaterina Viktorovna YEFREMOVA   Leninskiy District Court of Kostroma 26/01/2004   Kostroma Regional Court 30/11/2004   Convicted of multiple counts of theft in conspiracy Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – absent victim Mrs K. – 1)   relatively good reason for absence in view of the counterbalancing factors, 2) decisive witness along with one of his co-accused testimony, 3) sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill-founded.   4 6117/06   30/12/2005 Dmitriy Valeryevich MELNICHENKO 1979 Chelyabinsk Russian Sovetskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk of the Chelyabinsk Region 28/07/2005   Chelyabinsk Regional Court 15/11/2005   Convicted of aggravated abuse of power in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent witnesses Mrs Zh. and Mrs   Sh. – 1) could not be located despite valid efforts, 2)   neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   5 16425/06   29/03/2006 Vadim Sergeyevich IRGALEYEV 1984 Chelyabinsk Russian   Georgiy Viktorovich SUKHAREV Kurchatovskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk 24/10/2007   Chelyabinsk Regional Court 10/01/2008   Convicted of sexual assault in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent victim Mrs V. – 1)   could not be located despite valid efforts, 2)   decisive witness, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   6 33389/07   04/07/2007 Ivan Vasilyevich KUZNETSOV 1983 Moscow Russian Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow 23/11/2006   Moscow City Court 21/03/2007   Convicted of aggravated assault and robbery in conspiracy, and illegal storage of firearms   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent victim Mr N. – 1)   could not be located despite valid efforts, 2) neither sole, nor decisive witness, 3) sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill-founded.   7 54480/07   15/10/2007 Vladimir Gennadyevich NAGIBIN 1955 Moscow Russian   Yelena Pavlovna ARTAMONOVA   Domodedovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region 25/12/2006   Moscow Regional Court 17/04/2007   Convicted of threatening to use violence against a state official   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – absent witnesses Mr R., Mr   A. – 1) reading out of their statements by agreement of the defence party without any objections, 2) neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   8 1570/08   09/12/2007 Mikhail Aleksandrovich FIRSTOV 1971 Moscow Russian   Dmitriy Vadimovich AREFYEV 1963 Moscow Russian   Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow 29/03/2007   Moscow City Court 13/06/2007   Convicted of fraud in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – absent witness Mr K. – 1)   neither sole, nor decisive, nor carrying significant weight, 2)   conviction based on a multiplicity of different evidence and victims’ statements, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   9 3975/08   12/12/2007 Dmitriy Georgiyevich ALEYNIKOV 1970 Lipetsk Russian   Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow 29/03/2007   Moscow City Court 13/06/2007   Convicted of fraud in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – absent witness Mr K. – 1)   neither sole, nor decisive, nor carrying significant weight, 2)   conviction based on a multiplicity of different evidence and victims’ statements, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   10 20256/08   14/04/2008 Ibragim Asakhmatovich MSOSTOV 1970 Vladikavkaz Russian   Leyla Abdullayevna KHAMZAYEVA   Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow 17/05/2007   Moscow City Court 19/11/2007   Convicted of murder and theft Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent prosecution witnesses Mrs   B., Mrs Ch., Mrs P. - 1) could not be located/secure the presence despite valid efforts, 2)   neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3) sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill-founded.   11 28773/08   22/05/2008     Oleg Igorevich KUKHARKIN 1968 Bor Russian   Oksana Leonidovna GRUSHETSKAYA Arkhangelsk Regional Court 24/07/2008   Supreme Court 16/10/2008   Convicted of bribe-taking by public officers in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – refusal to testify at trial by witnesses Mr M. and Mr G. – 1) valid reasons for refusal, 2)   neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   12 31311/08   30/04/2008 Nikolay Alekseyevich KHOMENKO 1970 Ussuriysk Russian   Natalya Vasilyevna BULATOVA Primorskiy Regional Court 09/03/2007   Supreme Court of Russia 08/11/2007   Convicted of assassination and illegal handing of firearms in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – partial refusal to testify at trial by witness Mr T. – 1) valid reason for refusal, 2)   neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3) sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill-founded.   13 32453/08   12/05/2008     Andrey Petrovich BIKINEYEV 1972 Vostochnyy Russian   Yelena Vladimirovna GORASH     Dimitrovgradskiy Town Court of the Ulyanovsk Region 17/07/2008   03/09/2008 Ulyanovsk Regional Court   Convicted of participation in drug dealing in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent witnesses Mr So., Mr   St., Mr   P.P., Mr   P.A., Mrs P.G., Mrs K., Mr   Pr., Mr   Pe. – 1) relatively good reasons for their absence, 2)   neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   Article 6 § 3 (c) - own choice of legal assistance – manifestly ill-founded – no evidence regarding inadequate legal assistance of the assigned lawyer who only temporarily replaced the applicant’s legal assistant; as to legal costs the complaint is unsubstantiated.   14 46581/08   26/06/2008 Sergey Alekseyevich KOCHERGIN 1980 Salavat Russian Salavatskiy Town Court 14/11/2007   Supreme Court of Bashkortostan 14/02/2008   Convicted of attempted drug dealing and illegal acquisition, storage of drugs without intent to sell   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent witnesses Mr F., Mr   R. - 1)   could not be located despite valid efforts, 2)   neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3) sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill-founded.   15 48895/08   15/09/2008 Sergey Vladimirovich SLOKHOV 1966 Moscow Russian   Tatyana Ivanovna PROTSENKO Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow 31/03/2008   Moscow City Court 08/08/2008   Convicted of smuggling in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent witnesses Mrs V., Mr   M., Mr   K., Mr   S., Mr   Yud., Mr   R., Mr   Ul., Mr   P., and Mr Akh – manifestly ill-founded – the alleged witnesses were present at several hearing and the defence had questioned them; Mr   S.’s statements were excluded from the body of evidence by the appeal court.   16 54353/08   18/08/2008 Valentina Mikhaylovna URUKOVA 1961 Cheboksary Russian   Olga Vladislavna FISENKO Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary of the Chuvash Republic 16/06/2008   Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 28/08/2008   Convicted of numerous counts of bribery   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – absent witnesses Mr Il., Mr   B., Mr   Akh., Mr   Z., Mr   P., Mrs   M. – 1) neither sole, nor decisive, nor carrying significant weight, 2)   conviction based on the trial testimonies of other numerous witnesses and documentary evidence, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   17 7710/09   15/01/2009   Aleksey Aleksandrovich TKACHEV 1982 Astrakhan Russian   Dmitriy Arkadyevich DENISOV   Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan 26/06/2008   Astrakhan Regional Court 14/08/2008   Convicted of attempted drug dealing   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – absent witnesses Mr B. and Mr   Kh.- 1) reading out of their statements by agreement of the defence party without any objections, 2) neither sole, nor decisive, nor carrying significant weight 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   18 12565/09   07/02/2009     Arkadiy Vladislavovich AKLANOV 1971 Novosibirsk Russian   Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 28/02/2008   Novosibirsk Regional Court 11/08/2008   Convicted of attempted drug dealing in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – absent witness Mr Zh. – 1)   neither sole, nor decisive, nor carrying significant weight, 2)   conviction based on the trial testimonies of other numerous witnesses and documentary evidence, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   19 19210/09   12/02/2009 Sergey Alekseyevich CHERNOV 1976 Arkhangelsk Russian   Natalya Yevgenyevna MELNIKOVA   Arkhangelsk Regional Court 24/07/2008   Supreme Court 16/10/2008   Convicted of bribe-taking by public officers in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – refusal to testify at trial by witnesses Mr M. and Mr G. – 1) valid reasons for refusal, 2)   neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   20 19885/09   03/03/2009 Vasiliy Nikolayevich SOROKIN 1976 Kotlas Russian   Olga Vladimirovna DRUZHKOVA Kotlasskiy Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region 18/09/2008   Arkhangelsk Regional Court 19/12/2008   Convicted of aiding and abetting in illegal acquisition and storage of drugs without the aim of their trafficking   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – absent witnesses Mr S. and Mrs I. – 1) could not be located/secure the presence despite valid efforts, 2) neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3) sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill-founded.   21 35656/09   10/06/2009 Dmitriy Viktorovich DYAGILEV 1977 Moscow Russian   Aleksandr Vitalyevich VASILYEV Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow 13/05/2009   Moscow City Court 13/07/2009   Convicted of attempted robbery in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent witnesses Mr Sh., Mr   Akh., and Mr S.   As to absent Mr Sh. - his pre-trial testimonies were not included in the body of evidence – manifestly ill ‑ founded.   As to other two witnesses – 1) Mr. S could not be located /could not secure Mr Akh.’s presence despite valid effort, 2)   neither sole, nor decisive witnesses, 3)   sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill ‑ founded.   22 36235/09   02/09/2009 Eduard Anatolyevich DYACHOK 1968 Krasnoyarsk Russian Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 31/08/2009   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 02/02/2010   Convicted of attempted drugs dealing and preparation for drug dealing   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent witness Mr F. – 1)   could not be located despite valid effort, 2) neither sole, nor decisive witness, 3) sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill-founded.   23 46918/09   20/10/2009 Ivan Vladimirovich RYS 1984 Novosibirsk Russian   Yekaterina Viktorovna YEFREMOVA Novosibirsk Regional Court 10/12/2008   Supreme Court of Russia 05/05/2009   Convicted of attempted murder and incitement to murder in conspiracy   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - absent witness Mrs Sh. – 1)   neither sole, nor decisive, nor carrying significant weight, 2)   conviction based on pre-trial and trial testimonies of the survived victim, 3) sufficient counterbalancing factors. Manifestly ill-founded.